Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[matticus]

It is also quite easy to be in the top, say 20% of income and top 1% of wealth and vice versa.

Why does this matter? Genuine question , as I'm not sure what you/monkers are arguing about here!

IMO big disparities in either are unhealthy for society (for one thing, big wealth makes you privileged and comfortable just as big salaries do)

 

[First Aspect]

Why does this matter? Genuine question , as I'm not sure what you/monkers are arguing about here!

IMO big disparities in either are unhealthy for society (for one thing, big wealth makes you privileged and comfortable just as big salaries do)

Well IHT taxes wealth, for one thing, whereas most political discourse seems to revolve around taking the "rich" or "wealthy" via income related taxation. I think your perspective on IHT (or other taxes, but IHT is a particularly unpopular one) would depend on who you think it targets.

 

[monkers]

Why does this matter? Genuine question , as I'm not sure what you/monkers are arguing about here!

IMO big disparities in either are unhealthy for society (for one thing, big wealth makes you privileged and comfortable just as big salaries do)

It is easy to see earnings (inc profits) and wealth as two arms on the same body. But if and when a country decides to tax those with the greatest means, then are those people going to detach one of their own limbs to escape abroad. The wealthy can move capital to another place, but not just take flight if they hoard their wealth in the form of assets, ie land and property.

 

[First Aspect]

It is easy to see earnings (inc profits) and wealth as two arms on the same body. But if and when a country decides to tax those with the greatest means, then are those people going to detach one of their own limbs to escape abroad. The wealthy can move capital to another place, but not just take flight if they hoard their wealth in the form of assets, ie land and property.

There's a fairly good argument for taxing wealth as it is accrued, somewhat like income. The problem is getting there in a just fashion, because taxing wealth after the fact unfairly impact people who haven't got the income to pay for it. One option would be to defer it until death, I suppose.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Even if that is the case (and it is obviously contested), politically it's still bold: they don't have to have a policy on everything, and one that women are obviously going to have strong and personal opinions on is likely to be problematic politically.

They could always adopt the Starmer approach and have firm, bold views on nothing.

 

[Rusty Nails]

So you will say. I don't say this to be rude, but clearly you know little about the Green Party. On the one hand they care called ''middle class champagne socialists'', and on the other ''bog snorkeling ultra lefties''.
Their economic position is a bit left of centre, and their social policies are liberal. That doesn't stop detractors from the far right groups calling them ''communists'', ''far left loons'' etc.
At the moment they are becoming more popular and not because they are ''more extreme'', but better understood, especially by working age women, who may object to being called ''a bit thick''.

It is noticeable how often there is an element of using lazy clichés as an implied insult from those on the right when referring to anyone to the left of them.